4 ms·

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get in

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

allemagne 8y ago
Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.
- moduspol 8y ago
  We already do (at least in the US), in the form of entitlement expenditures, the military/industrial complex, federally subsidized student loans, and more. It doesn't happen overnight, but I don't think anyone doubts we're spending and taking on more debt than ever. It'll just undoubtedly accelerate the issue with no feasible exit plan.
insickness 8y ago
Great point. Politician #1: "I'm going to increase UBI to $2000!" Politician #2: "I'm going to increase UBI to $5000!" Politician #3: "I'm going to increase UBI to $10000!" I'm totally voting for politician #3!
- moduspol 8y ago
  And don't forget: proponents are claiming this is necessary because large groups of people will be incapable of obtaining gainful employment. This means, by design, this cannot just be "the necessities" because increasing groups of people will be relying on it to live out their entire lives. That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. After all, you wouldn't tell a huge group of people they'll never be able to afford a vacation their entire life, right? And this will include a car, at least for most of the US. How much money should be allocated for that? Should they be able to afford home ownership, or just rent? Will it be enough to let them choose where they want to live? These questions (and many like them) will be debated over and over again. I don't think it'll be as on-the-nose as you laid out, but over time, the end result is the same.
  - DonaldFisk 8y ago
    > That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. If people don't have work to do then they are already, practically by definition, on vacation. If you mean going on package tours and the like, there's no more reason to discuss those as a Basic Income "entitlement" than there is with social security payments.
    - moduspol 8y ago
      Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the difference is significant.
      - DonaldFisk 8y ago
        Basic income proposals that stand any chance of being adopted are for it to replace other forms of government provided unearned income (unemployment benefit, old age pension), and are approximately revenue neutral, so those out of work and claiming benefits would receive the same amount, those working or earning private unearned income would on average see their tax bills rise by the same amount as the basic income they would now get, and those not working and not currently claiming any benefits would receive it, but at the same time there would be savings from simplifications of the benefits system.
        moduspol 8y ago
        I've heard those theories and am quite skeptical, but they don't relate to my claims. My point is that even if everything you claim works out exactly as hoped, that will only be on day one. It is not the case that a growing majority of voters will simply be content with whatever is handed to them and be grateful. There will be ongoing debates about what that number should be, but it will almost never go down. And I've still seen no reasonable "exit plan" for how to transition away from a UBI society where some huge majority of people have, for decades or generations, been told they will never be working a day in their life.

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

allemagne 8y ago

Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.

moduspol 8y ago
We already do (at least in the US), in the form of entitlement expenditures, the military/industrial complex, federally subsidized student loans, and more. It doesn't happen overnight, but I don't think anyone doubts we're spending and taking on more debt than ever. It'll just undoubtedly accelerate the issue with no feasible exit plan.

insickness 8y ago

Great point. Politician #1: "I'm going to increase UBI to $2000!" Politician #2: "I'm going to increase UBI to $5000!" Politician #3: "I'm going to increase UBI to $10000!" I'm totally voting for politician #3!

moduspol 8y ago
And don't forget: proponents are claiming this is necessary because large groups of people will be incapable of obtaining gainful employment. This means, by design, this cannot just be "the necessities" because increasing groups of people will be relying on it to live out their entire lives. That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. After all, you wouldn't tell a huge group of people they'll never be able to afford a vacation their entire life, right? And this will include a car, at least for most of the US. How much money should be allocated for that? Should they be able to afford home ownership, or just rent? Will it be enough to let them choose where they want to live? These questions (and many like them) will be debated over and over again. I don't think it'll be as on-the-nose as you laid out, but over time, the end result is the same.
- DonaldFisk 8y ago
  > That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. If people don't have work to do then they are already, practically by definition, on vacation. If you mean going on package tours and the like, there's no more reason to discuss those as a Basic Income "entitlement" than there is with social security payments.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the difference is significant.
    - DonaldFisk 8y ago
      Basic income proposals that stand any chance of being adopted are for it to replace other forms of government provided unearned income (unemployment benefit, old age pension), and are approximately revenue neutral, so those out of work and claiming benefits would receive the same amount, those working or earning private unearned income would on average see their tax bills rise by the same amount as the basic income they would now get, and those not working and not currently claiming any benefits would receive it, but at the same time there would be savings from simplifications of the benefits system.
      - moduspol 8y ago
        I've heard those theories and am quite skeptical, but they don't relate to my claims. My point is that even if everything you claim works out exactly as hoped, that will only be on day one. It is not the case that a growing majority of voters will simply be content with whatever is handed to them and be grateful. There will be ongoing debates about what that number should be, but it will almost never go down. And I've still seen no reasonable "exit plan" for how to transition away from a UBI society where some huge majority of people have, for decades or generations, been told they will never be working a day in their life.